|
Article Excerpt
This study investigated two areas of interest in the literature on sexual minorities: milestone events in sexual identity development and campus climate for sexual minorities in young adulthood. What is unique is that the information is obtained from Christian sexual minorities attending Christian colleges or universities. A sample of 104 undergraduate sexual minority students at three Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) member institutions completed an anonymous online survey. The questionnaire asked sexual minorities for information on their experiences of campus climate as well as perceptions of campus resources, coping activities, and recommendations for campus, religious institutions, and other sexual minorities. Respondents also completed information on milestone events in sexual identity development. The results of the survey are a descriptive analysis of contextualized "voices" that relate a collective story for these representative institutions.
**********
The past several years have been witness to significant changes in how researchers and theorists understand the experience of sexual minorities. Two specific areas of focus have emerged as particularly important. The first has to do with milestone events in sexual identity development. These benchmarks refer to how sexual identity develops over time among young adults who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual (GLB), or who choose not to identify in terms of conventional sexual identity labels. The second area of focus is how environment impacts sexual minorities. In particular, we discuss the topic of campus climate. We briefly review the literature in each of these two important areas.
Milestone Events
The earliest models of sexual identity development (e.g., Cass, 1979) posited a linear approach to identity formation in which each person went through predictable stages toward a final synthesis. Subsequent models did not challenge assumptions of linearity and final identity outcome, but they did begin to recognize differences among sexual minorities based upon gender (e.g., Sophie, 1986), ethnicity (e.g., Chan, 1989), and religion (e.g., Yarhouse, 2001).
Although recent research has called into question several assumptions about linearity and fixed identity outcomes for sexual minority females (e.g., Diamond, 2007) and males (e.g., Rosario, Schrimshaw, Hunter, & Braun, 2006), many researchers find it helpful to identify the key milestone events in sexual identity formation. This does not forgo the possibility that identity labels may change over time or that the same person might have a different public identity (i.e., how their sexual identity is conveyed inter-personally) than a private identity (how their sexual identity is understood intrapersonally).
Milestone events include awareness of same-sex attraction, experiences of confusion about same-sex attractions, first same-sex behavior to orgasm, labeling of oneself to others, and so on. Savin-Williams and Cohen (2004) reported great diversity among sexual minorities, but they stated, "Most homoerotic youth recall same-sex attractions, fantasies, and arousal several years--on average--before questioning the meaning of these feelings ..." (p. 540). For example, in their study of White, Black, Asian, and Latino male adolescents, Dube and Savin-Williams (1999) reported a range of awareness of same-sex attraction (8-11 years old), first same-sex behavior (12-15 years), labeling of oneself (15-18 years), disclosure of identity to others (17-19 years), and first same-sex relationship (18-20 years). The commitment to an identity label may be falling off among sexual minority youth, however, as many youth prefer not to label themselves or may be open to a number of identity label options over time (Diamond, 2007; Savin-Williams, 2005).
There is reason to believe that these milestone events are similar among sexual minorities who are highly religious. For example, in their study comparing Christian sexual minorities who identified as gay with those who dis-identified with a gay identity, Yarhouse and Tan (2004) reported that Christians who dis-identified with a gay identity often chose not to engage in same-sex behavior. Furthermore, they were less likely than those who currently identified as gay to attribute their same-sex attractions to a gay identity. Sorting out their sexual identity was complicated for both groups and not resolved until an average age of 26 for those who identified as gay and an average age of 34 for those who dis-identified with a gay identity (see also, Wolkomir, 2006).
As this brief review suggests, there is a need to further our understanding of the experiences of sexual minorities who identify as religious. Although many sexual minorities do often identify a religious background or hold a high regard for personal spirituality (Ritter & Terndrup, 2002), there is often a complicated relationship with that religious upbringing, and some people choose a more general spirituality over organized traditional or conservative expressions of religion (Ritter & Terndrup, 2002).
Campus Climate
Sexual identity develops over time and in a socio-cultural context. The Christian college campus is one such sociocultural context, and campus climate has been an area of recent interest, particularly among sexual minority young adults in the college-age years.
As the literature suggests, many key benchmarks in sexual identity development occur in the late high school and college-age range (Diamond, 2007; Savin-Williams, 2005; Yarhouse & Tan, 2004). This information dovetails into a discussion of what college campus life is like for sexual minorities. For example, in a recent comprehensive document titled, Campus Climate for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Trangendered People, Rankin (2003) reviewed data on campus climate from a study of 1669 students, faculty, and administrators from 14 different institutions. The most direct experiences and self-report of harm included various forms of harassment, which was reported by 36% of sexual minorities within the previous year. Harassment typically was demonstrated by derogatory comments (89%), the vast majority of which came from other students (79%). Previous reviews and meta-analyses of various institutional or campus climate reports indicate similar concerns about harassment, including verbal harassment and threats of violence (see National Consortium of Directors of LGBT Resources in Higher Education, http://www.lgbtcampus.org/resources/campus_climate.html). Also reported are concerns about invisibility and isolation among sexual minorities (Brown, Hiappold, Clarke, Gortmaker, & Robinson-Keilig, 2002).
How are the issues related to campus climate experienced on Christian college campuses? Christian colleges and universities, in particular, are known for community life policies influenced by a traditional religious sexual ethic. However, they seem to remain schools of interest to sexual minorities, some of whom were raised in conventionally religious communities. Indeed, most resources on GLB concerns today identify religion and spirituality as concerns for many sexual minorities (e.g., Beck-stead & Israel, 2007; Chernin & Johnson, 2003; Ritter & Terndrup, 2002).
It should be noted at the outset that presumably some sexual minorities self-select out of religiously-affiliated institutions precisely because such institutions have policies that reflect religious doctrine on sexual behavior. However, others may attend for any number of reasons, including their preference to be taught in a religious environment or the influence of their current stage of sexual identity development. Perhaps, they are currently confused or questioning their sexual identity and find a kind of security associated with a more conventional religious setting.
Taken together, questions arise regarding Christian sexual minorities in religiously-affiliated private institutions that explicitly value heterosexuality and teach heterosexuality as normative for sexual identity and expression. What are the experiences of sexual minorities on these campuses? What are the challenges that this group faces? Little research has been reported on this subgroup of those classified as sexual minorities. What are the tensions between various expressions of diversity, e.g., sexual orientation and religion? At this point little is known about sexual minorities on Christian college campuses.
THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION
This study attempts to further our understanding of milestone events in sexual identity development and campus climate for sexual minorities who attend religiously-affiliated colleges and universities. Such understandings may benefit sexual minorities at these institutions, students who are in the majority, and the institutions themselves. Toward this end, an innovative surveying method was developed to hear the "voices" often unheard or unrecognized on Christian college campuses. This web-based surveying procedure allowed persons on these college and university campuses the chance to talk about their experiences without threat of disclosure. The online survey was designed to be an anonymous interview experience that facilitated a sense of privacy and security. This survey represented a first formal investigation among this subgroup across Christian colleges and universities.
METHOD
Participants
Executive administrators of several institutions within the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) were approached about an investigation of the experiences of their sexual minority students. After extensive dialogue and discussion with this group, several member institutions expressed interest in participating in the study, and at the time of study launch, three member institutions participated in this pilot study. A general announcement was disseminated through the mandatory chapel programs of each institution (see Appendix). Participation in the study required only online interaction with a survey; no contact with any campus personnel was required. An initial combined sample of 135 students from these member institutions responded to campus-wide requests for students who experience same-sex attraction to complete an anonymous online survey. Verification of a participant's status as a student participant was managed through matching each institution's range of computer IP addresses.
For the purposes of this study, "sexual minorities" were those "individuals with same-sex attractions or behavior, regardless of self-identifications" (Diamond, 2007, p. 142). Of the initial 135 participants, 31 students were not included in the data analysis because they denied experiences of same-sex attraction, behavior, or identification on the questionnaire. The remaining 104 respondents, who were included in data analysis, comprised a sample which was "traditional" in age (M = 20.3, SD = 2.0) and overwhelmingly single, never-married (96.2%; Divorced = 1%; Not Reported = 2.9%). Male (51%, n = 53) and female (49%, n = 51) were equally represented, as were the four school classifications (freshman, 24%; sophomore, 27%, junior, 22%; senior, 26%). The ethnic/racial make-up of the sample was primarily Caucasian/White (87%) with African-American 4% and Hispanic/Latin at 2% and Asian-American at 2%, which is similar to the ethnic/racial make-up of CCCU member institutions as a whole.
All but two of the participants identified themselves as Christians. While 84% viewed themselves as moderately to very religious, 93% said that they were moderately to very spiritual. Only 6% and 1% of this sample described themselves as not religious or not spiritual, respectively.
Survey
The self-report survey was created by the first and fourth authors for the purposes of the current study. It was constructed to provide an understanding of milestone events in sexual identity development and general impression of the perception of campus climate by sexual minorities. Concerning items on developmental milestone events in sexual identity formation, response formats ranged from yes/no responding to Likert scale to open response. For example, in response to the question, "Looking back, did you feel different from others for gender-related reasons, for example, because of your choice of play activities as a child or your choice of clothes, etc.?," participants responded either "yes" or "no." In another item format, participants were asked, "Please select the number that best represents your current attraction to the same sex." They responded from = "No attraction" to 10 = "Strong attraction." For more information regarding questions and response options, refer to the results section of the current article.
Concerning campus climate, questions were asked regarding multiple components - general campus climate, spoken comments and reactions across campus, awareness and utilization of resources on homosexuality, and developmental milestones. Response formats ranged from Likert scale to multiple choice. For example, in response to the question,...
|
